INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (Hansard, 16 March 1973)

§ Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)
I beg to move, That this House, regretting the increase in the number of days lost due to industrial disputes; recognising the concern of many taxpayers who consider that they are often asked to finance their own discomfort through the payment of supplementary benefit to strikers and their families and remembering scenes of violence and intimidation by pickets, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to alter the regulations for the payment of social security benefit during industrial disputes and make a clear, new declaration, defining what constitutes peaceful picketing. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss some of the causes and effects of the industrial disputes which are be-devilling our country. These disputes are a most unhappy feature of our national life today, and unless steps are taken 1697 to do something about them the incidence of disputes and days lost will grow even worse.
I see that the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry), the last man left on what I might call the burning deck of the Opposition benches, is about to leave the Chamber.

§ Mr. Ernest G. Perry (Battersea, South)
I am not going.

§ Mr. Page
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has returned. I have no doubt that the people of Britain will take it as significant that the Labour Opposition, for one reason or another, have decided to absent themselves from this important debate. I suspect that their reason for absenting themselves is the shame they feel in consistently supporting strikers and militants who have been making claims on industry and disrupting our national life, and they would find it impossible to offer any proper defence.
The proposals which I shall advance would make a big, contribution towards reducing the number of days lost through strikes. In 1950 there were 1,300,000 days lost through strikes. In 1960 there were 3 million days lost; in 1970, 11 million; in 1971, 13 million; and in 1972, 23 million—a terrifying escalation.
I am not anti-union and I am not anti-striker. I am anti-extremist, because I believe that the union extremists damage our social fabric. I am not anti-striker, because I believe that, provided that he follows the contract between himself and his employer, the individual has a right to withdraw his labour. I can establish my own background in this matter. Until an act of discrimination by the members of the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union in not inviting me to the celebration dinner when the Labour Party won the election in 1964, I was a member of that union. But I decided then to withdraw. I also believe that I am the only Conservative Member of Parliament who has spoken at two strike meeting on behalf of trade unionists who had, I believed, a proper case.
The first of my proposals concerns supplementary benefits paid to strikers and their families. It is unnecessary for us to talk about growing resentment among taxpayers concerning the amount 1698 paid out in supplementary benefits to these people. The public feel that strikes disrupt their lives, their businesses may be closed, their travelling is made uncomfortable and even intolerable, and when they find that they are subsidising those who are putting them in this position they are driven wild.
Until the introduction of the Labour Party's Social Security Act 1966, those who went on strike took the view that the responsibility for supporting their families and themselves during the dispute fell upon the individual and the trade unions. Since then, however, there has been a dramatic change. I want to illustrate this by giving figures. The social security benefit paid to strikers in 1950 was nil. In 1964 it was £600; in 1968, £700; in 1971, £5,000; and 1972 £181,000. Payments to dependants of strikers in 1950 was £9,000; in 1964, £50,000; in 1968, £333,000; in 1971, £4,309,000; and last year it was £8,380,000. So far £2,000 has been paid out to the gas workers, who have done nothing to help the taxpayers who are subsidising them.
The increase in benefit has been caused by the realisation that a strike can provide a tax-free holiday. Secondly it shows the rebound from the policy of the Social Security Act 1971, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), when the disregard of £4.35 was reduced to £1. That was designed to enable the Supplementary Benefits Commission to take union strike pay into account but it has had the opposite affect, which in most cases is that strike pay is not now paid, union funds being saved by the striker sponging on the taxpayer.
The disagreeable activities of the Claimants' Union have also been influential. I have with me a leaflet which was distributed and is being distributed to Ford workers. I shall read quotations from it. The first says: Watch out! SS=Strike Smashers. The Social Security will do everything in their power to stop us getting what we should. The only way to win is by organising not just against the Fords, but against the SS as well. It goes on to say: Union strike pay. Do not let the Union use its strike fund to pay individuals. The SS will deduct all strike pay over £1 from the claim—so the union funds go straight to 1699 the government. The SS is the biggest strike fund of all. Then again: You stand more chance of winning if you go to claim as a group. This was done during the miners and the builders strikes, when thousands of workers all over the country received at least £4 a week throughout the strike though officially they were not entitled to anything. Lastly, Don't bust yourself to pay bills and rent. The SS can make emergency payments for gas and electricity bills. And when you show them a threat of eviction, the SS must pay rent. I am told that the Trades Union Congress and certain trade union leaders do not approve of the activities of the Claimants' Union but I wish they would state this more publicly. There are good and respectable arguments for the total abolition of social security benefits paid during strikes. It is highly questionable whether the taxpayers should be asked to subsidise those who very often, as in the case of gas or electricity or rail strikes, are closing their businesses and making their home and travelling life a misery.
I shall give the two main arguments which are put forward in favour of retaining the present arrangements. The first was used by Mr. Victor Feather. He said that as the families of thieves and murderers could get supplementary benefit, to refuse it to strikers indicated that society felt that striking was a worse crime than murder. That is far-fetched. I should like to point out where the argument does not hold good. I do not believe that family income derived from supplementary benefit actually influences people to rob or to murder, but its payment influences people to go on strike, or at least it weakens their resistance to stop working.
The second argument that I have heard used, by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and others, is that to remove supplementary benefit would threaten starvation to wives and children —the "taking it out on the kids" argument. This is an exaggerated argument in present circumstances and, remembering the lack of starvation between 1945 and 1966 among strikers' families it has no history to recommend it. But it is hollow and hypocritical in present 1700 circumstances when the gas and hospital strikers are taking it out on the weak and the sick. However, except for one circumstance, which I shall come to, I do not believe that the country is ready to cut benefits altogether for reasons, I feel, of sentiment rather than argument.
What I now propose should be the first stage. I hope the Government will take the message from the House today that they should forthwith revert to a system similar to that practised before 1971 by assuming or deeming that the first £5 of weekly income is provided from union or strike funds. The £1 disregard could remain but the striker's family income would be accepted as receiving £5 from the union or other savings.
Second, the Government should arrange that all supplementary benefits, including rent allowances, which are received by strikers are received as a repayable loan, using the system which has now worked effectively since 3rd April 1972, whereby any post-strike payments are recoverable. It has now been proved that such payments are recoverable, without difficulty or undue complication, through income tax channels.
By taking these steps, the community would have the satisfaction of seeing that the first charge of maintaining the striker's family rests on the individual himself and his union, which is where I believe the community thinks it should rest if this is a responsible society at all. It would- also be shown that wives and children would not suffer unnecessary hardship through non-availability of benefit, but since it would be on a loan basis, apart from administrative costs and interests on the loan, no cost would fall on the taxpayer. This is an example, I believe, of justice.
I understand that at present benefit payments are made via the national Giro and that weekly cheques which are cash-able at the post office are made out to the striker himself. I would put it to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who is also present, that it seems illogical that we should make great play with the claim that the striker is not receiving the funds, and that they go to his wife and family, when the cheque is sent to the striker 1701 himself. I would recommend, in this year of women's lib, that the cheque should be made out to the wife and sent to her through the post to be cashed by her in the same way as family allowances.
I said that there would be an exception to the policy which I have outlined. This is that where a state of emergency is declared in consequence of an industrial dispute, no supplementary benefit at all should be paid to strikers. Surely, at a time of national emergency the action taken should not be self-defeating. It must be wrong for the nation for any reason to subsidise a group which is trying to defeat the Government's proposals during an emergency.
Finally, I wonder whether there is any merit in the following idea, which might be considered by the Government. At the moment, refunds of tax payments are often made by an employer when a strike takes place. There is no legal necessity for this; the employer is quite entitled to send the PAYE forms to the local tax office. I should like to see an examination made of whether it would be worth while for this practice always to be followed and no refunds of tax made until a strike was over, so that the totality of the loan which might have been made in supplementary benefit could be reduced by any tax refund which would be available. Therefore, the repayment time could be shortened.
On the second leg of my proposals, my remarks would be addressed through my hon. Friend to the Home Secretary. There is great concern in the country about violent picketing and intimidation. The incidence of these have been growing over the last few years and they culminated in the disgraceful displays during the coal miners' dispute and the building industry strikes last year.
It is not necessary for me today, in a speech that I shall try to keep short to give other hon. Members a chance to speak, to cite evidence of the violence and intimidation, because these were seen by millions of people in this country and, to our shame, overseas as well through the television camera, and ample evidence is given in the Press.
But I should like to draw attention to a small paragraph in today's Daily Telegraph. Headed 1702 800 Police in Picket Case Court Guard it reads: More than 800 policemen were called in to guard against trouble when 24 building worker pickets appeared in court at Shrewsbury yesterday. Liverpool Docks were hit as 6,000 men took the day off… They face 210 charges. Six are accused of conspiring to intimidate men to abstain from work and all 24 are charged with fighting and making an affray. Surely there is something wrong with our industrial relations system and the whole attitude of the country towards picketing if it is necessary for 800 police to be drafted to a court when 24 men are having their cases heard. Time and again we have been told by Ministers and Law Officers that the law dealing with picketing and secondary boycott is adequate. Yet over and over again events have proved that this is not the case. I have the greatest sympathy for the police who have enormous difficulty in trying to keep order in what are called the picket lines.
As I understand it, pickets are entitled peacefully to present their views to those entering an area. There is even some doubt as to whether they are entitled to try to persuade other workpeople not to go into that area. We are told by the Attorney-General that it is unlawful for vehicles to be stopped at the entrance, far more so for those vehicles to be turned back. I ask my hon. Friend, how can such descriptions of the law be squared with the customs and practices that have grown up in the last few years?
There has either to be a change in the law or a new and clear declaration of what are the rights of those who picket. Until this is done and until the whole law of picketing and secondary boycott can be recodified and made comprehensible, it is essential for the Government to make a new declaration of what constitutes peaceful picketing. This should include a code of behaviour to be followed by pickets, enforced by the police. The most important feature of this code should be a description of the numbers who may act as pickets at each factory gate.
I suggest that there should be a maximum of six pickets and that other bystanders should not be allowed within 50 yards of the gate. If it is a large gate through which thousands of workers may have to pass in a short time, an application could be made to the magistrates the day before for a larger number of pickets 1703 and for barriers to be erected at the gate so that the pickets could do their job properly.
It should also be necessary in every case for the local police to be advised 24 hours in advance of the intention to picket a place of work. By these two simple rules all doubt about whether picketing is legal would be removed. The trade union movement and hon. Members who do not believe in violent picketing should welcome this simplification.
I want to deal briefly with secondary boycott. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) is present and I wish that we could hear him lucidly explaining the law on secondary boycott and third-party picketing. In the last few days I have spent about three or four hours trying to understand the complexities of this law. I have had different advice from my learned friends. When a reasonably informed person working in a quiet atmosphere finds it difficult to understand the law it must be almost impossible for a police inspector, faced by a noisy and violent crowd, to make an assessment of what is or is not the law.
The Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor or whoever is responsible should set about codifying the law on secondary boycott so that it is comprehensible. Until that is done they should make a simple and clear declaration of what the practice should be.
I would go so far as to say that this matter is of more importance to the economic life and well-being of the country than any other. Unless the Government take steps along the lines I have suggested or, in view of their experience, along different lines but with the same ends, there is no chance of their phase 2 or phase 3 policy being successful. It is the Government's duty to act, and I commend the motion to the House.

§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)
We do not exactly have a representative House this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Indeed. We have a bunch of neo-Fascists on the benches opposite who have been agitating on this problem for a long time.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) had abundant opportuni- 1704 ties to deal with the problem of picketing in the Industrial Relations Act. When the Bill was proceeding through the House there were long debates on picketing in which the hon. Gentleman took a prominent part. The Act was paraded in front of the country and the House as the ultimate solution to the industrial strike problem, but the reverse has happened. In the last 12 months more days have been lost in strikes than during the six years of the Labour Government. That may or may not be entirely due to the Industrial Relations Act, but there is no doubt that the Act has done nothing to solve the problem. If anything, it has exacerbated it.
The problem posed by the hon. Gentleman in his motion is not what to do about picketing or about supplementary benefits but how to improve industrial relations to prevent the sort of situation about which he has spoken. We come back to square one—how to deal with industrial relations. They are human relations between the worker and the bosses. As soon as lawyers are brought into the dialogue, what is already a difficult problem becomes infinitely worse.
That is precisely what the Government have done. They have brought lawyers and the law court into a situation which can be satisfactorily resolved only by the workers or their trade unions, when they are organised, and the bosses getting round the table and discussing their problems as they arise with foremen and daily in every factory. The much-maligned shop stewards in every factory are, virtually every hour, solving problems as they arise with foremen and others further up the factory hierarchy, without lawyers or courts. What applies on the shop floor must apply to industry generally.
The situation has been bedevilled—I would go so far as to say exploited—by certain militant elements in the trade unions and certain bloody managements on the other side of the fence. The fault does not always lie on one side. There is a good deal of responsibility attaching to the managerial side, some of them still living in the nineteenth century.
Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is tackling this problem from the wrong end of the scale. Instead of diagnosing the cause he is looking at the effects. He talked about the striker sponging on the 1705 taxpayer. I do not know what he means by that. Let us consider the people I have in mind at the moment, the hospital ancillary workers, and the nurses.
I have been in this House a champion of the nurses for some years. Both parties, all Goverments, know that nurses will not strike. So we exploit them. Governments and the public in general exploit the nurses because they know that the ultimate weapon will never be used by the nurses. The doctors threatened to use the strike weapon and that was one of the reasons why the party opposite, just before the 1970 election, when the then Labour Government were trying to solve the same problem the present Government are trying to solve, the problem of inflation, then said, "Give the doctors their full 30 per cent."

§ Mr. James Wellbeloved (Erith and Crayford)
Led by the Prime Minister.

§ Mr. Hamilton
Led by the present Prime Minister. Also the spokesman at that time was the present Secretary of State for Employment, who said, "Give the doctors their full 30 per cent." So let them not lecture the hospital ancillary workers or the gas workers or even the railway engine drivers, because many of those workers are taking home less than £15 a week.

§ Mr. John Page
Only 0.2 per cent.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I am telling the hon. Gentleman the facts. He had better understand. Coming from Harrow he does not know the problems in the industrial north as we know them. I can take him to any factory in my constituency where he would be very lucky if he found one worker in ten taking home more than £20 a week. So do not let him or anybody on his side talk about these people holding the nation to ransom.
If he wants to look for the blackmailers in British society today let him not look at the nurses or at the hospital workers. Let him not look at the gasmen. Let him look at the land speculators. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) gave indications of how development grants have been exploited by speculators not producing anything—producing no wealth at all. If the property speculators went on strike nobody would be inconvenienced. The 1706 commuters would not be inconvenienced. Hospital patients would not be inconveniencd. It is the land speculators who are holding this nation to ransom.
Of course the workers, who are finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet and who watch the Government deliberately making their burdens harder to bear by putting up their rents, see that that is not due to a bad harvest in Russia or to the Japanese suddenly eating beef. It has nothing whatever to do with international circumstances over which we have no control. It is deliberate Government policy to reduce the standard of living of millions of people who happen to live in public authority houses.
In addition to that, we have the problems arising from the whole fiscal policy that the present Government have pursued over the last two and half years. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is at present sitting on the Government Front Bench, I do not know whether he will reply to the debate. He might go through a list. I could make his speech for him. He could talk about family income supplement and the pension to the over-80s. How much does that amount to? There are fewer than 100,000 of them. It is less than £10 million a year.
The family income supplement is given to people who are being paid less than a living wage by mean-minded employers. The farm workers, whose productivity exceeds that of most other workers in this country, are on wages which are less than they could get if they were in receipt of supplementary benefit. Many Tory Members are farmers paying such wages. I am sorry that the Father of the House is not present today. I shall not dwell on the matter too much, but about a fortnight ago there was a newspaper article which stated that the Father of the House was living on a magnificent estate in Yorkshire and paying starvation wages to his farm workers. No doubt he would talk about the unpatriotic behaviour of the hospital ancilliary workers and others.
The other week we had a lecture from the Lord Chancellor about being patriotic. But we do not need any lessons from the Tory Party on patriotism. We need no pulpit lectures from the Lord Chancellor or from anyone else who is doing very 1707 well thanks to the fiscal measures introduced in successive Budgets by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West talked with some scorn and concern about the Claimants' Union. I have seen some of the information which the union has published. That union is seeking to alert ordinary people to their rights under the present social security system. In a nutshell, their rights are that a person in need will get help from the Supplementary Benefits Commission, for which people have paid through their taxation. We all pay to finance the Supplementary Benefits Commission. When a person is in need and is not covered by any of the other provisions of the social security system, as a last resort he goes to the commission. No one likes to have to go to the Commission—at least, only a minority go to the commission because they like it. People go to the commission only when compelled to do so, when they have nowhere else to look for help.
Most people who apply for supplementary benefits know that all other income is taken into account, with the exception of the disregards about which everyone knows. The Claimants' Union has been saying, simply, that if workers on strike get strike pay from their union, that will be taken into account by the Supplementary Benefits Commission and, therefore, why should the unions pay it?
The workers are simply doing what stockbrokers and speculators in the City do. They get their accountants to see how best they can benefit from the law, how they can best evade their tax responsibilities by manipulating the Finance Acts. The Claimants' Union is doing no more than what is done every day by the wealthy in the City, who arrange their affairs to avoid paying their dues and to get every penny they can to which they are legally entitled. Workers are behaving no worse and no better than the wealthy in the City and in the rest of the country—

§ Mr. Neville Sandelson (Hayes and Harlington)
Within the law.

§ Mr. Hamilton
Within the law, as my hon. Friend says.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Harrow, West to say that he is not advocating total aboli- 1708 tion of social security benefits for strikers, but this is what some of his hon. Friends—and indeed the hon. Gentleman himself—are seeking to do: they want confrontation with the trade unions. Their basic objective is to starve strikers and their families into submission. If they cannot be beaten with the Industrial Relations Act, they would beat them by withdrawing State benefits which this House has said they are entitled to draw. Whatever gloss the hon. Gentleman puts on this picture, that is his aim.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the claim made by Vic Feather when he said "Why should you starve the wives and children of strikers if you do not do the same to the wives of murderers who are in prison for life or criminals serving long sentences?" Vic Feather is on a fair point. Whatever the merits of the strike—and there are often more merits than demerits—it surely is morally wrong to penalise the wives and children. This is the Government's dilemma. They are faced with extremely violent Right-wing pressure from their party to go much further than they themselves want to go and to go much further than the country would allow them to go.
Whatever one may think about the present discomforts of the commuters in London and elsewhere, or the discomfort which hospital patients may be undergoing, this situation can be exploited. I am sure that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) would no doubt wish to emphasise and underline the discomfort of the people who are now deprived of their transport, but I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would be prepared to live on the wages taken home by the men who are now striking to gain an improvement. The simple question is: would he be prepared to live on an engine driver's wage?

§ The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark)
Before the hon. Gentleman gets even farther away from the motion than he was before, could he quote any sentence from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) in which my hon. Friend attacked the trade unions?

§ Mr. Hamilton
My goodness, the whole speech was oriented in that direction. 1709 The hon. Member referred to strikers as a whole, and most of the strikes are now official. To that extent he attacked Vic Feather—and if he is not attacking the trade unions when he attacks Vic Feather, I do not know the meaning of words. If the hon. Gentleman was not attacking the trade union movement, who was he attacking? Certainly he was attacking violent pickets, and I agree with him in that respect. I have no sympathy and nor has my party with those who engage in violent picketing.

§ Mr. Ernest G. Perry
The hon. Gentleman attacked the gas workers.

§ Mr. Hamilton
He attacked the gas workers, as he attacked the coal miners and those working on building sites. His reason for attacking the miners was that they beat the Government. If the Government had beaten the miners a year ago we should have heard nothing about them today. It is only because the Government lost that strike that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are angry. Having lost that strike, they now seek scapegoats. They do that by emphasising the violent picketing of a minority. The majority of picketing is peaceful, but there is a violent minority and, as I say, neither I nor my party hold any brief for that.
This, too, was a problem which engaged the attention of the House when we were discussing the Industrial Relations Bill. It is extremely difficult to know where to draw the line in legal terms between what is and what is not peaceful picketing. The Home Secretary has said repeatedly at the Dispatch Box that it is up to the police to decide where the dividing line is. They are on the spot. They know when the line is overstepped. This House cannot draw a clear dividing line. The people on the spot must decide when that borderline has been crossed.
I had an example in my own constituency at Longannet power station where some miners engaged in picketing at six o'clock in the morning. There was a struggle with the local police. They were taken to the court in Dunfermline and they were all acquitted, having been alleged to have engaged in physical violence. That was recourse to the law of which the hon. Member for Harrow, West approves, and the law took its course. That seems to be the result of his Gov- 1710 ernment's legislation and legislation which preceded the Industrial Relations Act. The law on picketing goes back long before that.
I return to the hon. Gentleman's proposition about how strikers ought to be disciplined by the withholding of social security benefits, especially supplementary benefits. I tried to make the point yesterday that the workers who are out at present are not the kind of militants that the hon. Member for Harrow, West appears to have in mind. Does he think that the hospital ancillary workers, two-thirds of whom are women, anyhow, are militants and that they ought to be disciplined by withholding supplementary benefits from them? Is that what the hon. Gentleman says? A lot of these women are single, though no doubt some are married and doing part-time jobs. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that their supplementary benefits should be withdrawn? If he does, he had better make his position clear. I do not think that he will get much support in the country for that proposition.
I objected when the hon. Gentleman said that the strike is creating hardship for hospital patients. I do not deny that there may be some discomfort for them. But strikes create discomfort. That is one of their purposes. The fact is that those who are on strike have until now had an enormous sense of responsibility because of the discomfort that industrial action on their part might cause to patients. Nevertheless, they had no other course but to take strike action because of the sheer frustration of the position in which they found themselves.

§ Mr. Sandelson
I hope hon. Members will overlook the fact that I entered the Chamber only a short time ago. However, I have been following my hon. Friend's speech with great sympathy and interest. May I ask him to link the gas workers in his remarks about the hospital ancillary workers? Is it not the fact that the gas workers, who are represented by a union—the General and Municipal Workers' Union—which has an extremely moderate tradition in industrial affairs, had not been on strike for over 50 years until they were provoked to do so by the Government's policies and refusal to recognise the justice of their claim?

§ Mr. Hamilton
My hon. Friend is right. He underlines the point I am making. I was concentrating my remarks on the hospital ancillary workers because I am particularly interested in them. However, the gas workers cannot in any circumstances be defined as a militant, irresponsible group. Their record over the years is second to none.
The same applies to civil servants. Some civil servants in social security offices throughout the country receive less in wages than they pay out to recipients of supplementary benefits. Yet these people have had to face increases in food prices of nearly 30 per cent. in the last two-and-a-half years, and prices are still increasing. Rents, rates and house prices have gone up and are still rocketing, and these people continue to take home miserly wages.
So the gas workers, civil servants and hospital ancillary workers cannot be classified as troublesome militants who ought to be starved into submission because, as the hon. Member for Harrow, West said, they are trying to defeat the Government's proposals. Of course they are trying to defeat the Government's proposals. What is wrong with that? We are trying to defeat the Government's proposals.

§ Mr. Ernest G. Perry
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) referred in sneering terms to the gas workers. Does he realise that nearly all the national Press and the leaders of industry have said that the gas workers, if anybody, have a very strong case?

§ Mr. Hamilton
All these groups have strong cases. That is why the Government are resisting them all. They claim that once they make an exception the floodgates will be opened. This is the great problem faced by all Governments in trying to implement a prices and incomes policy. Every group of workers claims to have a special case, but there is no denying that these particular groups have special cases. If I were asked to categorise and grade them in terms of hardship, I should put the hospital ancillary workers and nurses at the top of the list. It is interesting that the nurses top the popularity polls among the public. They are top of the pops in terms of popularity but bottom of the league in terms of income.

§ Mr. Perry
Where are we in the popularity polls?

§ Mr. Hamilton
We, as Members of Parliament, are second from the bottom.
It cannot be denied that any man with family responsibilities who is receiving less than £30 a week has a far higher claim on national resources than the man earning £5,000 a year and above. The Government have paid more regard to the man earning £5,000 a year and more than to those earning under £30 a week. That is the crux of the national problem which we are facing. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members on the Government benches getting worked up. The taxation figures are available and nobody can deny them.
I shall refer briefly to the proposals of the hon. Member for Harrow, West. He admitted that the extreme proposal of getting rid of all social benefits to all strikers was not on. Of course the Government know that. The hon. Gentleman then said that there should be some form of repayable loan. What does he think the effect of that would be on wage claims? When a striker returned to work, if he had to start repaying his loan he would bring pressure to bear on his union leaders to put in a further wage claim to help to repay the loan. That would exacerbate the problem of inflation which we are seeking to resolve.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that social security payments which relate to the wife and children should be payable to the wife in the same way as family allowances. It comes ill from the Government to put forward the proposition that family allowances might be taken away from the wife and given in tax credit payments to the husband. That is one of the proposals which the Government have put forward. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sought to correct that in his Budget. Nevertheless it remains one of the propositions in the Green Paper that tax credit should be given as an alternative to family allowances.
The Government should not have put that proposition forward as an alternative. It was clearly in their mind to take family allowances away from the wife and to give tax credits to the husband. Conservative Members should not parade that proposition as a virtue.

§ Mr. John Page
The hon. Member has now spoken for half an hour. That is about seven minutes more than I took. The hon. Gentleman entered the Chamber in the middle of my speech and took no interest in the debate. He is now taking part in a filibuster. Will he give an opportunity to the Minister to reply to the debate, or an opportunity to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine), who had a filibuster done to him last week?

§ Mr. Hamilton
There is no such thing as a filibuster on a Friday. The hon. Gentleman knows that. It is out of order and I would not engage in it. The debate was initiated by the hon. Gentleman and he must expect a reply in considerable detail.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
Has it escaped my hon. Friend's notice that he and his hon. Friends are the only hon. Members present who speak with the authentic voice of the working man? We are putting forward the points of view of the gas workers, the hospital ancillary workers and others. Almost all hon. Members on the Government benches are either company directors or public relations operators. They are waiting to join an attack on people who are fighting desperately to get £20 a week when they are themselves in most cases getting well over £5,000 a year.

§ Mr. Chichester-Clark
rose—

§ Mr. Hamilton
No, let me answer my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved).

§ Mr. Ernie Money (Ipswich)
On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) to say, without studying the Government benches properly, that we are all company directors or public relations officers? If he had taken the trouble to look properly he would know perfectly well that there are some hon. Members on the Government benches who are neither public relations representatives nor company directors.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)
There is nothing out of order in what the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has said.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
Further to that point of order. I ascertained the facts before I made that statement. In order to assist your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I point out that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) is a company director, the hon. Member for Old-bury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes)—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have already ruled on this matter. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
Further to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a fact, with the exception of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money), who is a barrister-at-law, and the Parliamentary Private Secretary—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member is now repeating himself. Will he please not do so.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
I am trying not to repeat myself, but I want to put this point of order to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It is not a point of order. I have ruled on the point of order.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
You have not heard the fresh point of order that I am putting to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My fresh point of order is that the hon. Member for Harrow, West has accused my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West of engaging in a filibuster. That, as you well know, is a direct reflection on the Chair, because it is the duty of the Chair to protect the House from needless—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It is not out of order to accuse another hon. Member of taking part in a filibuster.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
Further to that point of order. It is, however, a reflection on the Chair to suggest that the Chair would sit idly by and watch a breach of order by tedious repetition of filibuster and I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will rule that no breach of order and no filibuster has been perpetrated on the House this afternoon.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
A filibuster and tedious repetition may be quite different. I have already drawn attention to one instance of tedious repetition. I do not think that there has been any filibuster 1715 and, even if there were, it would not be out of order to say so.

§ Sir Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will not be lost upon you, I should have thought—and I speak as one who has sat here throughout the day, unlike the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who has only recently entered the Chamber—that the effect of what has been happening is for the second week running to deprive hon. Members whose constituencies are badly affected by a current industrial dispute of the opportunity to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. That is deliberate and it is now manifest—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It is not a point of order for me. It is a matter of the conduct of hon. Members.

§ Mr. Hamilton
The hon. Member for Essex-South, East (Sir Bernard Braine) was not here for the first debate, as I was.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I have been here all day.

§ Mr. Hamilton
No, the hon. Member has not been here all day, or, if he has, he has not been in the Chamber. I came in to listen to the beginning of the debate shortly after eleven o'clock and the hon. Member was not then present. Do not let him pretend that he has been here all day.
Moreover, it is well known that when an hon. Member moves a motion in these terms, designed to make an attack upon a particular section of the community, another hon. Member—

§ Sir Bernard Braine
People outside will form their own opinions.

§ Mr. Hamilton
Of course they will. When an hon. Member opposite chooses—

§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)
On a point of order. I am trying to follow the reply of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), but I find it somewhat difficult to do so because of the noise that is coming from hon. Members in sedentary positions. I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you would 1716 ensure that hon. Members make interruptions only when standing.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member is as yet a young man. The Chair heard perfectly well what went on.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I was about to reply to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. I understand his frustrations. It is not unknown in the House on a Friday, or on any other day, that one does not get all that one wants. When a motion is moved in these terms, deliberately designed to exacerbate an extremely serious problem, deliberately designed to attack a section of the community, the hon. Member should not be surprised if an hon. Member on the other side who happens to be more sympathetic to that section of the population than he is replies in kind. That is just what I am doing.
Of course one knows how the inconvenience to London commuters can be exploited. Of course one knows how the inconvenience of others can be exploited. I go so far as to say that the Tory Party almost hopes that old people will die as a result of this strike.

§ Mr. Money
Disgraceful.

§ Mr. Hamilton
They almost hope—

§ Mr. Money
Withdraw. It is scandalous.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I repeat—

§ Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester)
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Hamilton
The Tory Party—

§ Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles
Witgdraw.

§ Mr. Hamilton
They hope—

§ Mr. Money
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that it would be better to allow the hon. Member to continue his speech.

§ Mr. Chichester-Clark
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give way to me earlier. Perhaps he will draw to the attention of his hon. Friends the fact that, when he came into the Chamber this afternoon—presumably so as to be ready to object to Private Members' Bills other than his own—we were then discussing these matters, which certainly could affect the position of the low paid, 1717 about whom he professes to care so much and there was then present in the Chamber only one other Opposition Member. That is the extent of the Opposition's care for the position of the low paid.
I tell the hon. Gentleman frankly that he has driven from the Chamber other hon. Members who simply could not put up with the arrant rubbish which he was talking, in the course of which he sought to make the most disgusting accusations of which he ought to be thoroughly ashamed.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go away and think a little more seriously about the problems facing the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine), who have been put to great inconvenience by the extraordinary situation on the railways.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. This intervention is becoming rather long.

§ Mr. Hamilton
The Minister of State represents a Northern Ireland constituency. If anyone is an authority on nonsense, he is. He knows all about nonsense.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
He has deserted Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. Hamilton
The hon. Gentleman said that I made foul accusations. I repeat them. I believe that the present Government have sought confrontation with the trade union movement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I believe that they are hoping that people will die as the result of—

Hon. Members
Disgraceful.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that it is to be deprecated that hon. Members should make such allegations across the Floor.

§ Mr. Hamilton
If you are ordering me to withdraw, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall, of course, withdraw. If you are merely deprecating, that is a matter of opinion. The choice of language which I use is a matter of judgment, but, so long as I use language which is in order in the House, I intend to use it. Allegations have been made from the Government side about people—

§ Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you enlighten the House whether you were instructing the hon. Gentleman to withdraw?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am not instructing him to withdraw. He made no remark which was out of order. I merely deprecated certain remarks.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I am much obliged. Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith (Glasgow, Hillhead)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to suggest that the Government are conniving in the killing or murdering of people? That is what he said.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Such a remark would be greatly to be deprecated, but what the hon. Gentleman has said is not out of order.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I was not making that implication. The hon. Member for Hill-head has just walked in. He has come here on his weekly exercise to object at four o'clock to my Divorce Law Reform (Scotland) Bill. He will shout "Object", and then get the next aeroplane to Scotland. That is his week's work done, and he will get a lot more than £20 a week for doing that. We are now talking about people on £20 a week. They are on strike because they want more, and we are talking about people out on strike. Some of the commuters for whom the hon. Member for Essex, South-East has expressed concern will be getting less than £20 a week. What are we to do? Are the railway engine drivers expected to endure an intolerably low standard of living in order to ensure that those commuters who live in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are not inconvenienced?

§ Sir Bernard Braine
The hon. Gentleman should get the facts right. The vast majority of railway men are drawing much less than is usually drawn by those who are now striking. Many of the ASLEF men who are now causing utter misery to untold thousands of people are in the £2,000-a-year class, which is vastly more than is earned by many of the people they are supposed to be transporting but are not.

§ Mr. Hamilton
Maybe the people who are inconvenienced, the commuters, should strike as well if they are getting less than the railway engine drivers.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
The hon. Member stands for anarchy.

§ Mr. Hamilton
The position has not been brought about by—[Interruption.]—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Conversations across the Floor of the House from a sedentary position are very much to be deprecated.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
They are bringing Parliament into disrepute.

§ Mr. Hamilton
If it is anarchy it has not been brought about by me. It has been brought about by the Government. The motion seeks to try to prevent progress towards anarchy, as the hon. Member for Harrow, West calls it, by starvation. That is the next weapon in the armoury of the Right wing of the Tory Party. If they cannot beat them by the Industrial Relations Act, they beat them with the Supplementary Benefits Commission. But, of course, the Government would not do it. If the hon. Member's propositions were accepted and strikers' wives and kids received no cash from the Supplementary Benefits Commission, where would they go?

§ Mr. John Page
That is not what I said.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I missed the first five minutes of the hon. Member's speech but I heard his proposition. I heard the greater part of his speech and his proposition was a loan. It was that if there were no cash benefits payable to the wife and children, they should be paid through the Giro to the woman herself. I have agreed with that proposition.

§ Mr. Ernest G. Perry
In fairness, and I am sure that my hon. Friend wants to be fair, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) said that he would not cut it out altogether; he would severely reduce the amount of benefit.

§ Mr. Hamilton
Very well, let us suppose that happens—

§ Mr. John Page
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you help me? 1720 I have asked for a declaration from the Government on matters of great importance to the country concerning social security benefit and picketing. Would it be possible for you to help by suggesting a way in which the Minister could make a statement or let us know whether one is available?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is very learned in the procedures of the House and I am sure that he will find a way of doing so if he wants to.

§ Mr. Chichester-Clark
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think I can save you from further points of order if I make it clear that I very much hope that there will be a statement on picketing in the next two weeks.

§ Mr. Hamilton
That makes it all the more necessary for me to speak until four o'clock. If the Minister is to make a statement in the next fortnight, what is the point of the debate? The hon. Member for Harrow, West should have contacted the Minister before wasting the time of the House in the way he has. The Minister is not ready to make a statement yet but will do so within a fortnight. I guess that it will go nowhere near the propositions advanced by the hon. Member for Harrow, West. If it does, it will be roundly condemned not only by my right hon. and hon. Friends but by the majority of the people in the country. Whatever problems the country faces, and one would not wish to underrate them in any way, they will not be resolved by punishing people in financial terms, nor can it be done.
I come back to the proposition advanced by the hon. Member. Suppose that the social security benefits were taken away or reduced. The people involved would immediately have recourse to the social welfare services of the local authority. The local authority would be expected to provide all kinds of services—maybe not financial—such as taking children into care, which would cost the taxpayer and, therefore, the ratepayer far more than the hon. Member would have hoped to save in supplementary benefit payments.
So the whole thing is nonsense and the sole purpose of the exercise today has been to cash in on the inconvenience that is being caused by the railway 1721 engine drivers, the hospital ancillary workers, the civil servants and the rest, who are protesting against the treatment that has been meted out to them by the Government in the form of a rate of inflation—